So who was responsible for ruining Marxism/Socialism/Communism?

[Hexen]

Who was it? Was it Stalin?

[Notorio]

Since when was it ruined? heh. Certain people who might beleive it was will give you many varied reasons. Hoever, one thing is for sure, Stalin didn't exactly help it's image!

[Bright Banana Beard]

The bourgeois class.

[Reznov]

It got old. Its the American way of life.

Stuff only stays cool for so long before people stop giving a shit and find something new.

[WeAreReborn]

It got old. Its the American way of life.

Stuff only stays cool for so long before people stop giving a shit and find something new.
So it got ruined because it got old? What? Your logic is non existent. It wasn't a new toy and I am sure he was speaking about internationally.
Anyways, I think a lot of it had to do with Cold War Propaganda. Stalin did murder a lot of people but I am sure the numbers and the cruelty is far over exaggerated which most people like to distance from. It was a well played card on the American side. Too bad it is harmful to the Communist movements everywhere.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

So it got ruined because it got old? What? Your logic is non existent. It wasn't a new toy and I am sure he was speaking about internationally.

Yeah, it failed because it got old and stopped being cool when people stopped giving a flying shit. You know -- remember that passionate anti-war movement we briefly had here in America, not extremely long ago?

Yeah -- it also got old like that, too.

[La Peur Rouge]

I think it's a little late to be pointing fingers at dead men.

[Hiero]

COINTELPRO, FBI, CIA, US armed forces, ASIO, ASIS, MI5, Mossad etc

I mean seriously, why don't you asked survivors of the Indonesian Communist Party, Marxist exiles from Guatamela, Chila, Nicaragua, Iran, former Black Party Panther members. They won't even mention Stalin, Stalin gave support and aid to such groups or their predecessor groups. Marxism is more than just the flavour of the month.

[Revolution starts with U]

Nobody ruined socialism. Socialism has to be accepted, (and is being if not marxism per se), not imposed.

[Amphictyonis]

The Russian Revolution was pre mature as the advanced capitalist nations had yet to go socialist. Lenin thought imperialism was a sign that capitalism had run it's course globally and thought socialism would soon take hold in the advanced capitalist nations because of capitalism's inability to expand the capitalist mode of production any further.

After seeing capitalism was far from done expanding it's productive forces Stalin came up with the "socialism in one country" theory. Russia had to develop the industrial means of production and this cannot be done under socialism- it must be done under capitalism, this is why Russia was never capitalist. There was no mass population of proletarians in Lenin's time- mostly people on the countryside,farmers. In Stalins time there was a large industrial population but the industrial means of production was not developed enough to form 'socialism in one country' (or material abundance in one country). The worlds resources and trade between continents is nessesary for that. The USA tried to keep Russia economically isolated along with the other quasi socialist states. WW2 obviously didnt help either- as far as trying to develope the means of production, create a democratic environment and provide material abundance. No excuses for Stalin though, but, even if Russia had been as democratic as possible it would have failed without the other advanced capitalist nations turning to socialism.

Russia was never communist- it was trying to speed through the capitalist phase of production while pushing other western advanced capitalist nations to go socialist. (Marxist) Advanced industrial communism, or anything other than primitive communism, has never existed on earth. Communism has not been 'ruined' it's simply the ignorant opinion of people who don't understand Marxism, history or capitalism.

[lines]

Socialism has been making advances in Latin America. Whether it will continue to make advances and whether or not it will recede remains to be seen.

[Amphictyonis]

Socialism has been making advances in Latin America. Whether it will continue to make advances and whether or not it will recede remains to be seen.

Socialism doesn't exist in Latin America. The potential for South America to manifest into an advanced communist region hardly exists without an advanced western capitalist nation first going socialist. :(

This isn't to sat Chavez isn't a socialist but private property still exists in Venezuela- there's still a large bourgeois class. I don't see South America goinmg socialist without Venesuala and I don't see Venezuela going socialist with only Iran helping it out trade-wise. Again, the advanced capitalist nations is where we should all focus.

[RadioRaheem84]

What gave socialism a "bad" name was Stalin and the birth of "siege socialism", but only in the sense that capitalists capitalized on the faults of the Soviet System ( most of which they contributed to).

Remember that no socialist nation has ever seen one day of peace which accounted for the decision to remain in constant state of war. Imagine if the US were to have never left the political, economic society of WWII. Imagine if the whole nation were to have been run by the military, with top down commands, the hierarchy and the censorship of alternative views. On the plus, the central planning (like the US Military) offered housing, food, education total social security.

Transfer all of the central planning of the US military system over to civilian life and you have a glimpse of what the former socialist countries looked like albeit with more democracy if you can believe that.

They had real enemies to worry about (although internal threats were largely imagined), unlike us where we invent enemies.

This created for a whole host of corruption and bureaucratic mess that exposed the holes in Soviet Central Planning.

But the system was far more sustainable than a capitalist one and offered the vast majority of people a decent life. This is the part that is largely omitted from the history books. So we get the glimpse of large scale "poverty" and "totalitarian" authority from the capitalist media.

So no one besmirched socialism, it was besmirched in the eyes of the world because it was under constant attack from without, internal bickering and corruption from within as a result of the former.

I do not believe the Orwellian mess that states that the USSR became corrupt because of a power grab by certain nefarious men. The situation of the former socialist nations are way more complex than that and have largely to due with issues surrounding their survival. This brought out the worst in great men.

[Amphictyonis]

What gave socialism a "bad" name was Stalin and the birth of "siege socialism", but only in the sense that capitalists capitalized on the faults of the Soviet System ( most of which they contributed to).

Remember that no socialist nation has ever seen one day of peace which accounted for the decision to remain in constant state of war. Imagine if the US were to have never left the political, economic society of WWII. Imagine if the whole nation were to have been run by the military, with top down commands, the hierarchy and the censorship of alternative views. On the plus, the central planning (like the US Military) offered housing, food, education total social security.

Transfer all of the central planning of the US military system over to civilian life and you have a glimpse of what the former socialist countries looked like albeit with more democracy if you can believe that.

They had real enemies to worry about (although internal threats were largely imagined), unlike us where we invent enemies.

This created for a whole host of corruption and bureaucratic mess that exposed the holes in Soviet Central Planning.

But the system was far more sustainable than a capitalist one and offered the vast majority of people a decent life. This is the part that is largely omitted from the history books. So we get the glimpse of large scale "poverty" and "totalitarian" authority from the capitalist media.

So no one besmirched socialism, it was besmirched in the eyes of the world because it was under constant attack from without, internal bickering and corruption from within as a result of the former.

I do not believe the Orwellian mess that states that the USSR became corrupt because of a power grab by certain nefarious men. The situation of the former socialist nations are way more complex than that and have largely to due with issues surrounding their survival. This brought out the worst in great men.
Russia was never an advanced communist nation dare I say even socialist. They were flirting with socialism. In my humble opinion only flirting and that was after Stalins death. :)

[RadioRaheem84]

I can see what you mean. Yes, in most regards it was a flirtation with socialism. A definite permanent state of limbo. But it did symbolize that another alternative was possible. One different from the colonial periphery or the advanced exploitative center.

This is what frightened the ruling classes in the West, that the global south would soon catch wind that taking a developmentalist road would be preferable to being slaves to the industrialized north.

What the USSR symbolized was a beacon of hope for many in the third world. That there was at least another way! Now it's gone and it's image tarnished.

[Amphictyonis]

I can see what you mean. Yes, in most regards it was a flirtation with socialism. A definite permanent state of limbo. But it did symbolize that another alternative was possible. One different from the colonial periphery or the advanced exploitative center.

This is what frightened the ruling classes in the West, that the global south would soon catch wind that taking a developmentalist road would be preferable to being slaves to the industrialized north.

What the USSR symbolized was a beacon of hope for many in the third world. That there was at least another way! Now it's gone and it's image tarnished.

A symbol of false hope though. I don't think Marx/Engels ever intended for socialism to manifest out of the third world. Originally, before Lenin, Marx's works were understood as the path to global socialism through advanced capitalist regions/nations.

This is why I'm not a fan of Maoism or any other sub fraction post Marx. No offense to Maoists, Stalinist and Trotskyites :) They way I see it everyone post Marx was going about it the wrong way- what we needed all along has been both declining material conditions in the advanced capitalist nations and a Lenin or Trotsky or some avenue of class consciousness in the advanced capitalist nations be through a 'vanguard' or not. Ideology is important but as a materialist I believe material conditions must worsen in advanced capitalist nations before the ideology will have a stage.

[Q]

Who was it? Was it Stalin?

Sorry, my mistake, I screwed up there, won't happen again.

On a serious note: Define "ruined" and these things are results of processes, not of individuals (although individuals obviously do play a role in a smaller or larger extend). I'm an anti-stalinist, yet I do not recon that communism was "ruinied" by Stalin all alone.

[NGNM85]

Lenin.

[Blackscare]

The left became flaccid and content to infighting and self-satisfied critique from afar.


What we need now is a "harder", if you will, form of Leftism, so that the working class may once again stand proud and erect.

[Os Cangaceiros]

bukharinite trotskyist social fascists/wreckers.

[Widerstand]

Blaming the failure of socialism on the fact that socialist revolutions only happened in underdeveloped countries doesn't cut it. While it may serve as an explanation for their failures, it leaves open why exactly there was an absence of socialist revolutions in developed countries.

I think the answer to that isn't at all obvious, especially to the many Marx dogmatist ("anti-revisionists"), who ascribe such magical powers to this man, that he could have possibly foreseen the course of history over the next two centuries. This is in no means an attempt to dismiss Marx' analysis of capitalism, because it demonstrably still holds true. But he did not, and in fact could not have foreseen the turns late capitalism took.

It has, in the developed nations, developed an integrative system so advanced that all the obvious shortcomings of Marx' era capitalism are now, under great effort, either taken care of by the state, or by moving them from the first to the third world, or from one group of workers to another, less vocal (or less educated) group of workers.
This creates not only major splits in the working class as they are observed by Third Worldists (but interpreted in a crassly wrong manner). It also goes along with the "naturalization" of capitalism, driven forward by the 'trade' principle, which in the form of consumerism perpetrates every sphere of human life, and the so-called "neutrality" of science, which in fact operates within the capitalist system and by capitalist perimeters as if both of them were natural, rather than historically evolved, facets.

What we see is the full integration of every part of the individual into the capitalist system, the total subordination of all action and interaction under the 'trade' principle, a never before seen legitimacy of capitalism by displaying itself as a natural mode, and a continuing split of the working class. In short: The most massive assault on class consciousness imaginable. And the most effective one in history.

If at all, the paralysis can be broken off by capitalism re-developing it's shortcomings. And it has done so. Environmental shortcomings are a major topic of the past decades. Shortcomings to integrate all workers are showing it's face in the struggle against austerity measures and in the anti-globalization movement. But these movements bear little revolutionary connotations. In fact, they are at times even co-opted by bourgeois interests. They may be directed against capitalism, but they are not opposed to it. They are inherently reformist movements. The anti-austerity movement is the only first world movement existing at this time that has the potential to unite the masses on a common class line in the Marxist sense.

Weather or not it will be successful, only time can show. But if it won't, maybe it is time to say goodbye to the Marxist idea of revolution as a massive militant movement organized along class lines.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Who was it? Was it Stalin?

There are lots of reasons.

Up until 1917, the revolution was said to be going quite good. Some could argue the fact that the rest of the world was against the idea of communism, the country started to lose trade links, particularly with America. Also hostile military intervention didn't help a lot either.

However, some of the fault has to be shared by the left wing as well. From a pure Marxist perspective (as opposed to a Marxist-Leninist approach) revolution was supposed to happen in an industrialised country like Germany. Russia which was largely an agricultural community was to merely act as the catalyst. Lenin disagreed. He began the people's revolution, revolution in Germany failed, he was stuck with a lot of backwards and uneducated who had no idea how to manage the means of production, etc. and he lost trade links with capitalist countries so he had to start a second revolution that was top-down to try and "educate" the people. Then of course we had Stalin who took over from Lenin and decided to carry on Lenin's legacy in an even more brutal, centralised, bureacratic manner. Had Trotsky got in, he said that he would have made the state directly democratic (given all the workers' democratic power to manage it) but he didn't get in and he spent most of his time thereon criticising Stalin and the bolshevik regime which, as far as he was concerned had gone down the drain. Stalin had him exiled and later sent an assassin after him to kill him. He axed his head with a pick axe: Trotsky was said to have a phenominally large brain. The bolsheviks tried to cover up the mass poverty with heaps of paper work, bills, etc. I think Hitler also tried to invade Russia at one point.

So from a purely Marxist perspective, Lenin and Stalin was dogmatic and all the rest of it, however the Marxism also receives criticism from other left wing ideologies. Anarchists believe that Marxism is bureacratic as well: we believe that the state has always been reactionary, top-down and all the rest of it. We would sooner support a revolution outside of the state through the utilisation of directly democratic trade unions, syndicates, etc. The Spainish Revolution was anarchistic and was largely successful but they lost the civil war to the fascist general, Francisco Franco.

[Cencus]

Who was it? Was it Stalin?

nope it was Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick :lol:
Sorry couldn't resist.

Simpley put it was capitalists that wrecked the image of socialism/communism. Until the internet came about almost all our info came newspapers/tv controled by **drumroll** the rich/governments. 150 years of negative publicity has most certainly had an inpact. Add to that the left's constant self critism/infighting and you have a recipe for a public relations disaster.

[Rakhmetov]

The boys of Capital, they also chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century -- without exception -- has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement -- from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in Salvador -- not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.
It's as if the Wright brothers' first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man shall never fly. ----intro to Killing Hope by William Blum

http://killinghope.org/

[Zanthorus]

Blaming the failure of socialism on the fact that socialist revolutions only happened in underdeveloped countries doesn't cut it. While it may serve as an explanation for their failures, it leaves open why exactly there was an absence of socialist revolutions in developed countries.

There wasn't an absence of anything. There was the German revolution of 1918, the Italian 'two red years' of 1919-20, the shop-steward committee movement in Britain and other similar movements in something like fifty countries. I really do hate to sound like a Trotskyist, but I think in part the failure of socialism to materialise is a failure of tactics and leadership. This process began with certain tendencies with second international Marxism.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

In short: The most massive assault on class consciousness imaginable. And the most effective one in history.
Let's not get carried away. Feudalism and monarchism lasted for millennia upon millennia and still hold sway in many parts of the world. Bourgeois democracy has managed to stick it out for a couple of centuries in its most long-standing centres, and hasn't ever made it to vast swathes of the world. I'll agree that bourgeois democracy is the most effective system of oppression in history if it's still going strong in 5000AD.

[RadioRaheem84]

This system of capitalist liberal democracy is the most effective system of governance in the history of the world. It really does internalize it's logic and paints a picture of itself in the most delusional way. Like Marx said, it creates an image of itself.

Even intellectuals, who are supposed to be the elite of academic excellence are not immune from this propaganda. They are like a secular priesthood!

This system has killed more people than anything ever before and we're supposed to be apologetic for socialism because of the USSR? Give me a break!

[RED DAVE]

The social democrats and the stalinists fucked it up.

RED DAVE

[RadioRaheem84]

Social Dems really did F things up.

Stalinists, why? Even if they're apologetic to some Stalin's more autocratic methods, why did that ruin socialism? Apparently, imperialism never ruined capitalism according to many cappies.

[Zanthorus]

Stalinists, why?

I don't know, it might have something to do with the Bolshevisation of the Comintern, the forced submission of the Western Communist parties to the rule of the CPSU, and the expulsion of internal and external opposition - Bordiga, Trotsky and the International Left Opposition. It might have to do with their flip-flopping tactical line - one minute the social-democrats are "social-fascists", and Hitler taking power will be a prelude to Communist revolution, the next minute we're supposed to be making alliance with the liberal and democratic bourgeois parties and taking up positions to the right of the social-democrats so as not to scare the former off. It might have something to do with the crypto-Menshevik "stages" theory according to which the Communists were supposed to form the left-wing of the Chinese nationalist party while samesaid nationalists were slaughtering them and the workers in Shanghai. It might have something to do with the fact that after ousting any kind of opposition, they dissolved the Comintern in the 40's, so as not to scare their Allies in the Second World War. It might have something to do with the fact that in samesaid World War they completely abandoned the revolutionary class line of the transformation of the Imperialist War into a Civil War. It might even have something to do with the overwhelming statism and nationalism which was the hallmark of the 'Official' Communist parties: Just take a look at the endless permutations of the original CPGB's 'British Road to Socialism', according to which Socialism would be a result of working within the Labour party and outside pressure from the Soviet Union - nothing about working-class revolution from below, the expropriation of the expropriators.

[RadioRaheem84]

Touche.

Yet, how is it still a blight on socialism? The political opportunism, faulty planning and shaky political alliances with non-communists was a result of forced industralization and Stalin's autocratic control.

At one end, the cappies used this to give socialism a black eye, but even to Orwell (USSR's most vocal critic), it did not condemn socialism to the trash bin.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

It might even have something to do with the overwhelming statism and nationalism which was the hallmark of the 'Official' Communist parties: Just take a look at the endless permutations of the original CPGB's 'British Road to Socialism', according to which Socialism would be a result of working within the Labour party and outside pressure from the Soviet Union - nothing about working-class revolution from below, the expropriation of the expropriators.
Related to our other discussion, this is why having a "programme" is such a stupid idea. The working classes will create their own revolution, from below. Our job is to support them in that, not construct castles in the sky for them to march into.

[Zanthorus]

Touche.

Yet, how is it still a blight on socialism? The political opportunism, faulty planning and shaky political alliances with non-communists was a result of forced industralization and Stalin's autocratic control.

At one end, the cappies used this to give socialism a black eye, but even to Orwell (USSR's most vocal critic), it did not condemn socialism to the trash bin.

I don't think you really quite get the picture. It has nothing to do with the USSR as such, although that does play into it. It has to do with the fact that Stalinism as a political tendency, even outside it's home turf of the fSU, pursued a systematically vacillating and opportunist political line which squandered practically every chance the USSR might have had of breaking it's political isolation from the developed world.


Related to our other discussion, this is why having a "programme" is such a stupid idea. The working classes will create their own revolution, from below. Our job is to support them in that, not construct castles in the sky for them to march into.

:rolleyes:

So the CPGB's absurd political programme automatically invalidates all kind of political programme writing? I suppose you also think that the Soviet Union proves that the Leninist conception of the party is flawed, in which case you may want to write to your glorious leaders in the SWP and get them to sort that out.

And for the record, I don't think the SWP's actual practice is really all that far from what we could expect from the Official Communist Parties.

[RadioRaheem84]

But what was the main reason for Stalin to consider those positions? Was it just out of a lust for power? I look at interests and roots causes for actions.

Stalin may have been an S.o.b but what were the prime motivations for all that you mentioned? It may not have been socialism but he was operating under the conditions of a world dominated by capital and political influence.

[Orange Juche]

First, everyone is taking the question too literally. The poster obviously doesn't believe socialism, in and of itself, is "ruined..." but it doesn't have the acceptance in the western world that it once had long ago. By "ruined" they are implying it's acceptability, not the ideology itself. Don't take things so literally.

Second, I would say there are two major factors. The first being the bourgeoisie, seeing a system which overthrows and replaces them, created an atmosphere (via the media, schools, etc) in which socialism was evil and would make people's lives horrible. This still carries over into today, because everyone KNOWS Communism is such a good idea on paper, but doesn't work in practice. Right. Ask the average high schooler what "dictatorship of the proletariat" means... if nobody knows what it is, but is told it doesn't work... what is the natural result?

The next factor would be, in my opinion, Stalin. He was a brutal, evil asshole who was part of the "bureaucrat class." He gave the bourgeoisie in the west plenty of ammunition to show how bad socialism is (while in reality, it was Stalinism that was failing the people of the USSR) and now our movement suffers for it. Stalin "killed" socialism, in the sense that, he was a major contributor to its current non-acceptance in the west. And because of it, realistically, it'll be another generation or two before Marxism is taken seriously.

Socialism isn't ruined... not permanently. But, realistically, it's going to take years of struggle to finally fade it back in to any level of acceptance.

[el_chavista]

So who was responsible for ruining Marxism/Socialism/Communism? Too general a question.
I have already wrote a general answer elsewhere: the petty bourgeois bureaucrats, social traitors and capitalist roaders.

[Barry Lyndon]

The Stalinist regime was monstrous, but it was a Frankenstein's monster- it was created by the frightened bunker mentality that had set in the Soviet Union due to the relentless economic and military siege imposed on it by capitalist powers.

I'm a little tired of those on the Left who insist that it was just because of the wrong interpretation of Marx or something that the major socialist movements of the 20th century failed. Theory is not much help when you are contending with invasion, blockade, assassination, death squads, terrorism, sabatoge, and the like. It's an internalization of the propaganda that revolutionaries only have themselves to blame when they go down in defeat. It's just the opposite-capitalist powers did not attack anti-capitalist societies because they were failures, but because they were afraid they would succeed.

[Amphictyonis]

[QUOTE=UN;1908096]Blaming the failure of socialism on the fact that socialist revolutions only happened in underdeveloped countries doesn't cut it. While it may serve as an explanation for their failures, it leaves open why exactly there was an absence of socialist revolutions in developed countries.
See the "Is Globalization A Good Thing" thread. :) Marx talked about the probable pre conditions for revolution in advanced capitalist nations. The thing is, Lenin and later Russian Marxists discarded or revised all of Marx's work on the subject because it was irrelevant to Russia seeing they were not an advanced capitalist society.

[Amphictyonis]

the russian revolution was pre mature as the advanced capitalist nations had yet to go socialist. Lenin thought imperialism was a sign that capitalism had run it's course globally and thought socialism would soon take hold in the advanced capitalist nations because of capitalism's inability to expand the capitalist mode of production any further.

After seeing capitalism was far from done expanding it's productive forces stalin came up with the "socialism in one country" theory. Russia had to develop the industrial means of production and this cannot be done under socialism- it must be done under capitalism, this is why russia was never * socialist [fixed]. There was no mass population of proletarians in lenin's time- mostly people on the countryside,farmers. In stalins time there was a large industrial population but the industrial means of production was not developed enough to form 'socialism in one country' (or material abundance in one country). The worlds resources and trade between continents is nessesary for that. The usa tried to keep russia economically isolated along with the other quasi socialist states. Ww2 obviously didnt help either- as far as trying to develope the means of production, create a democratic environment and provide material abundance. No excuses for stalin though, but, even if russia had been as democratic as possible it would have failed without the other advanced capitalist nations turning to socialism.

Russia was never communist- it was trying to speed through the capitalist phase of production while pushing other western advanced capitalist nations to go socialist. (marxist) advanced industrial communism, or anything other than primitive communism, has never existed on earth. Communism has not been 'ruined' it's simply the ignorant opinion of people who don't understand marxism, history or capitalism.

* edit

[Zanthorus]

But what was the main reason for Stalin to consider those positions? Was it just out of a lust for power? I look at interests and roots causes for actions.

Stalin may have been an S.o.b but what were the prime motivations for all that you mentioned? It may not have been socialism but he was operating under the conditions of a world dominated by capital and political influence.

Listen, for the purposes of this thread I don't care wether the USSR was a capitalist wasteland where they killed a hundred Ukrainians every day just for kicks, or wether it was a glorious socialist paradise where people ate free ice cream, puppies never died and the toilet seats were made of 24 carat gold. That doesn't excuse the thousands of western Marxists who followed every tactical twist and turn which was laid down for them by the Comintern. Stalinism is not just about Stalin, it's about the degeneration of the Communist International, the transformation of apparently revolutionary parties into an arm of capital, the lies and calumny steeped upon anyone who dared speak up against them.

[Amphictyonis]

Marxism/communism/socialism has not been ruined. END THREAD.